search_mdn

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches MDN documentation but doesn't describe how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a search tool with complex parameters like cache settings and timeout, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters with nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description details. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain parameter usage and behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions none of the 4 parameters (query, maxResults, timeoutMs, cache), leaving their purposes and usage completely undocumented. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search MDN documentation for JavaScript and web platform references.' It specifies the action (search), target resource (MDN documentation), and scope (JavaScript and web platform references). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_project_files' or 'search_ui5_sdk', which search different resources.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'search_project_files' or 'search_ui5_sdk'. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.